I guess living in America (and when I say America, I mean the United States) you get used to a few things: presidential elections every four years, a media that specializes in “infotainment”, and mass murder.
Statistically speaking, the U.S. is a pretty violent place to live.
There was a mass shooting in Colorado five days ago.
It’s pretty easy to become jaded about things like this (to dismiss this as just one more crackpot on another killing spree) or to make light of the situation by cracking jokes about the color of James Holmes’ hair or whatever else we can laugh at from afar. But, as a human with a family of my own and people who I care about (not to mention caring for my own safety), I am horrified by the actions of an individual who, for whatever reason, decided to take the lives of innocent people. As an American, I am saddened by the realization that along with the shock and horror, inevitably will come the media with their vulture-like fascination with all things violent and tragic. But, as a philosopher, I am left to wonder why philosophers are so silent (or have been silenced) in the media?
Let me get this straight; I don’t want to throw my two cents in just because everyone else has something to say about what happened. There’s enough speculation and entertainment-izing of this tragedy going on as it is. But when every news show, entertainment program and blogger has either thrown in his or her “this is what I think happened”, with an unending que of guests, therapists, and experts ready and more than willing to explain their version of the what and why behind James Holmes’ act (most of these guests are tangentially connected to the event — at best), I am left to wonder, if the actor Stephen Baldwin is acceptable enough to go on Headline News’ Showbiz Tonight to talk about James Holmes’ act, why wouldn’t a philosopher be welcome on any media program as well?
I can’t be the only person who has noticed this.
After all, are philosophers not qualified to discuss matters of ethics? Certainly we would place a moral value on what James Holmes did. If we say that what he did is wrong, why would we not trust a philosopher to explain why we feel that it is? Again, I ask, are philosophers not qualified to discuss the morality of violent cinema or gun control? Are philosophers not capable or qualified to discuss the ethics of how we treat the mentally ill, punishment and retribution or the death penalty? Certainly, if there is any time when we should look to philosophers, shouldn’t that time be now?
Is there not one ethicist that the media can talk to?
I suppose not.
Instead of philosophers, we get this: